Conservative radio- host's "9 points" (Michael Savage) [Archive]

Alden

February 23rd 2003, 07:53 PM

1. Make tax cuts permanent.
2. Close the borders now.
3. Deport all illegal immigrants now.
4. Eliminate bilingual education in all states.
5. Require health tests for all recent foreign born immigrants.
6. Eliminate as many entitlement programs as possible.
7. Reduce the number of Federal Employees.
8. Oil Drilling on U.S. Soil.
9. Tort Reform "STOP LAWYERS".

Michael Savage founded The Paul Revere Society (PRS). With a crisis of leadership threatening the United States, PRS stands for the reassertion of our borders, our language, and our culture.

Some say that the borders are arbitrary, English is only one of many languages in our new "Multicultural America," and that we share no common history or values. We believe in the Sovereignty of our Nation. That English is our national "glue." And that we all do share in the pillars of the Bible, the U.S. Constitution, and the Bill of Rights. These documents and what they stand for are our common cultural heritage.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Savage frequently brings up his nine points and his thoughts on "boarders, langugage, and culture." What do you think?

yxboom

February 23rd 2003, 08:23 PM

Except Michael Savage believes the Bible is a great work of literature alone, the Genesis account being entirely mythology. So I call the Bible being a pillar statement suspect from him. :hrm:

Ishmael

February 23rd 2003, 09:08 PM

I personally agree with Savage on the "Borders, Language, and Culture" ideal but see him as a fanatic in his nine points, which I have heard him state many times. We need fanatics to speak, not actually hold positions of leadership in government. (the same goes for Bob Enyart BTW.. I know there are some Enyart fans here... :yipee:)

“BLC” is IMO the foundation of culture and is being systematically undermined but our government. No, I don't think there is a conspiracy to do this, I just think that Liberalism's foundations (which is a vaguery I know) tend to undermine our culture little by little.

I disagree with his position on the Bible. He should study the issue some more before opening his mouth on issues he knows little about. (And that comment goes for O'Reilly too!)

yxboom

February 23rd 2003, 10:49 PM

Calvinist made great points. I particularly have not found anything regarding Savage's "Borders, Language, Culture" motto that I have disagreed with. I followed his show for some time on KSTE right after Dr. Laura but as of recently (within the past few months) have been really turned off by his ramblings regarding the Bible being good literature only. I would echo Calvinist in saying the guy needs to stick to things he knows and the authority of Scripture definately is not one of those areas he has clearly shown time and time again.

flipper

February 23rd 2003, 11:00 PM

I quite like Dr Mike, he's a bright man and he has the gift of the gab. Surprisingly, there are a few areas that we have common ground on much though he would despise my liberalism. He has obviously become the voice for a large amount of Americans who feel disenfranchised, which is interesting in itself.

I don't so much like the way he's prepared to roll over regarding anything the government wants to do on Homeland Security. He seems to assume that government always has the best intentions of the people at heart (conservative govt anyway), although he does joke on occasion about being taken away. People with that sort of following who support such initiatives as the Information Awareness Office are apologists for and enablers of systems that circumvent the Constitution. There seem to be no guarantees or checks and balances that will prevent abuse of these systems.

Also, I'm glad he doesn't harbour political ambitions. The Savage Nation might not really be a friendly place. He's right about the bible though - you know, a literalist interpretation really isn't the only one, and it is the one that seems least supported by the actual evidence.

yxboom

February 23rd 2003, 11:09 PM

That reminds me of a recent BC comic (http://www.creators.com/comics_show.cfm?next=14&ComicName=bc)

flipper

February 23rd 2003, 11:26 PM

Ooooooh....

Contro-versial!

Ric

February 24th 2003, 12:01 AM

Alden

February 24th 2003, 12:25 AM

Why?

yxboom

February 24th 2003, 12:26 AM

On what grounds would you state #4 needs be stricken. I would agree with Michael Savage that it is imperative to the foundation of national identity which is the purpose of borders, language and culture.

Ric

February 24th 2003, 12:59 AM

02-23-2003 @ 11:26 PM
yxboom:

On what grounds would you state #4 needs be stricken. I would agree with Michael Savage that it is imperative to the foundation of national identity which is the purpose of borders, language and culture.

Think about what you are saying...

To do away with any education in this country is not a good thing! The dumbing down of America has been happening from the 1940's on (thanks to the liberals)!

Rubia Warren

February 24th 2003, 01:17 AM

I am completely against bilingual education for a couple of reasons. But, the biggest reason is because I, at age 22 1/2, learned spanish fluently without one book, or one teacher showing me how. Throw yourself in a situation daily where you are surrounded by people speaking in another language and see how quickly you will learn that language. Sure, I had questions, and from time to time looked certain words up in a dictionary, but when it's sink or swim, it is amazing how quickly one can learn to float when they don't have anything to hold on to. I think that teaching someone all the time in their own language hurts kids- these kids mostly when they go home are surrounded by spanish only, anyway, not to mention that learning in spanish at school holds them back even worse. Nothing can cushion the shock of going from one language all the time to another, and it was that shock that pushed me to urgently want to learn. Not only that, but learning in that way is better IMO because the end result is not only being bilingual, but you can THINK in both languages, also, like it's natural. No translating going on up in yer head. I really hope someone disagrees with me. This subject is a pet of mine.:brow:

Rubia Warren

February 24th 2003, 01:20 AM

02-23-2003 @ 11:59 PM
Ric:

Think about what you are saying...

To do away with any education in this country is not a good thing! The dumbing down of America has been happening from the 1940's on (thanks to the liberals)!
I agree with you in a way, but on the other hand, we can't learn things for other people.

Captain Ochre

February 24th 2003, 01:50 AM

02-24-2003 @ 04:59 AM
Ric:

Think about what you are saying...

To do away with any education in this country is not a good thing! The dumbing down of America has been happening from the 1940's on (thanks to the liberals)!

Moo?

The bilingual education on Savage's hit list is non-English standard education. IOW, immigrants nationalizing but retaining exclusive use of their foreign tongue. Eliminating bilingual education adds education: Mandatory instruction in English. Quebec is our object lesson.

Ric

February 24th 2003, 01:57 AM

02-24-2003 @ 12:50 AM
Captain Ochre:

Moo?

The bilingual education on Savage's hit list is non-English standard education. IOW, immigrants nationalizing but retaining exclusive use of their foreign tongue. Eliminating bilingual education adds education: Mandatory instruction in English. Quebec is our object lesson.

I thought it meant to do away with teaching Americans another language. I always wanted to know a forth or fifth language! (well, after I knew a second and third language! LOL :rofl: )

Ishmael

February 24th 2003, 09:24 AM

02-23-2003 @ 10:59 PM
Ric:

Think about what you are saying...

To do away with any education in this country is not a good thing! The dumbing down of America has been happening from the 1940's on (thanks to the liberals)!

He is not talking about learning "foreign" languages he is speaking of teaching Math in Spanish.

Ryokan

February 25th 2003, 09:18 AM

I disagree with Michael Savage on almost every point along the way. I think he is a Fanatic. I also would never, ever want ot live in his "Savage Nation". And he loves to use words that his average listener doesn't understand (usually incorrectly) and then explain it to them to seem smart. Blah

Point 1. Making the tax cuts, or all tax cuts, permanent would cripple the governments ability to engage in fiscal policy, or fight the debt.
Point:2 We should open our borders completely in my opinion. If we let in everyone who wasn't a terrorist, criminal, etc. then we would in the long run be improving our economy, forstalling the social security crisis, and helping the hungry masses get a leg up in our wonderful land.
Point 3: If we did my suggestion for point two, then yes, I agree
Point4: I don't agree. We want ot educate the people who do come over here and our citizens. But we should agressively teach them English as well, so by the time they are out of elementary school and into middle school there is little or no need for bilingual teaching.

Ryokan

February 25th 2003, 09:22 AM

Point 5: I agree, if he means preventing infectious disease from entering this country
Point 6: I disagree. We should structure them differently, but I think the social damage done would be tremendous by just cutting people loose.
Point 7: That is a good idea, because they are expensive money sucks
Point 8: So long as it isn't government subsidized
Point 9: Depends on what he means

Ryokan

February 25th 2003, 09:29 AM

But, if you want ot know just what I think about the borders language, culture thing, ignore my mindless chatter above. I don't think our language and or culture is under threat, nor do I think a dramatic influx of foriegners would be a threat. Immigration early this century and in the past didn't destroy our cultural heritage, and most immigrants I know of, especially the illegal ones, agreesively try to be American, their children even more so (who usually are American). It is largely the ivory tower left and African Americans who want to emphasize multi-culturalism, not Hispanics. And if let in many more immigrants, tightening security on the border would be alot easier.
And as far as Bilingual education goes, I think it is worthwhile, but make it so people can only be bilingual educated for a certain amount of time. And teach them English. At the same time, every nonimmigrant American child should be taught one or more language in grade school as well, so that we americans are less provincal and can compete in the global market better.

Captain Ochre

February 25th 2003, 10:54 AM

02-25-2003 @ 01:18 PM
Ryokan:

I disagree with Michael Savage on almost every point along the way. I think he is a Fanatic.

Just so we're clear, saying that he's a fanatic is a fallacious reason to disagree with his points.:smile:
Fanatic because of his points, maybe--but that will have to wait on other reasons.

I also would never, ever want ot live in his "Savage Nation". And he loves to use words that his average listener doesn't understand (usually incorrectly) and then explain it to them to seem smart. Blah

Point 1. Making the tax cuts, or all tax cuts, permanent would cripple the governments ability to engage in fiscal policy, or fight the debt.

Nonsense. Tax cuts, down to a certain point, improve the economy and stimulate cash flow back to the gummint in the form of taxes. John F. Kennedy did it, and Ronald Reagan did it, and it worked.
Cutting taxes to zero, obviously, would cripple the income of the gummint--but taxation is about as high as it's been non-wartime in this country, so it stands to reason that a permanent tax cut will increase the gummint coffers if the economy improves as expected.

Point:2 We should open our borders completely in my opinion. If we let in everyone who wasn't a terrorist, criminal, etc. then we would in the long run be improving our economy, forstalling the social security crisis, and helping the hungry masses get a leg up in our wonderful land.

The Democrats have seen fit to make families of immigrants immediately eligible to receive social security benefits (or welfare, ftm, but the soc. sec issue is the greater concern now that Presdent "i'll co-opt the republican contract with america" Clinton reformed welfare). Each immigrant, under current law, is able to bring their extended family along and place them on the dole.
You crunch the numbers.

Point4: I don't agree. We want ot educate the people who do come over here and our citizens. But we should agressively teach them English as well, so by the time they are out of elementary school and into middle school there is little or no need for bilingual teaching.

It is precisely your point about English that Savage is stressing. Having a growing number of American citizens who do not speak English at all tends to weaken the cultural bonds that make us strong as a nation. Again, see Canada and Quebec.

Ryokan

February 25th 2003, 11:24 AM

Yes, his fanaticism was not substantiated our proven correctly. I don't like him. Point taken.

Tax cuts are good, but we shouldn't cut taxes until, a. we reduce the debt to a more manageable level, and b. we are willing to cut spending. Otherwise, permanent tax cuts are foolish.

We should have them be on a green cardesque system, and only allow them citizenship and welfare rights after they have had a steady job, speaking passable English, and know enough about our history. But we should give them that chance.

And I understand his point about Quebec, but the problem with Quebec is more about the fact that Quebeci's, outside of there language, feel like they are Quebecis first, and Quebec is their national home. But, America has absorbed many more immigrants than now, and did less too teach them English, and we are a pretty homogenous culture. It worked before, it'll work again. And just because someone doesn't speak English doesn't mean they shouldn't be able to learn in school. But they should be taught.

Captain Ochre

February 25th 2003, 05:51 PM

02-25-2003 @ 03:24 PM
Ryokan:

Yes, his fanaticism was not substantiated our proven correctly. I don't like him. Point taken.

Tax cuts are good, but we shouldn't cut taxes until, a. we reduce the debt to a more manageable level, and b. we are willing to cut spending. Otherwise, permanent tax cuts are foolish.

To hear our resident economist Alden (iirc) tell it, the debt in proportion to the GNP is at a manageable level.

Good point about the spending. The Republicans have been more eager to spend than I would have liked; the Dems are always willing to spend (Speaker of the House apparently achieves some spectacular pork for her home state of California this year). If the tax cuts are passed and the Dems continue to push for more & expensive programs, consider that they might not have the country's best interests at heart (perhaps focused on strengthening the party via sabotage of the economy).

We should have them be on a green cardesque system, and only allow them citizenship and welfare rights after they have had a steady job, speaking passable English, and know enough about our history. But we should give them that chance.

I doubt that you crunched the numbers, or you would've given even that more modest suggestion with considerable temerity.

And I understand his point about Quebec, but the problem with Quebec is more about the fact that Quebeci's, outside of there language, feel like they are Quebecis first, and Quebec is their national home. But, America has absorbed many more immigrants than now, and did less too teach them English, and we are a pretty homogenous culture.

Been to Miami or LA recently?

It worked before, it'll work again.

Utterly open borders hasn't been tried since before the US warred for independence, afaik (feel free to substantiate your claime that it worked before). Previous instances of heavy immigration were far more controlled than those of the past decade.

And just because someone doesn't speak English doesn't mean they shouldn't be able to learn in school. But they should be taught.

Sounds nice, but what's your prescription (especially if you permit uninhibited immigration and Texas gets an extra 50,000 spanish-speaking children in the coming year)? Will Padre & Madre pay for the new schools?

Alden

February 26th 2003, 01:47 AM

02-25-2003 @ 07:24 AM
Ryokan:

Tax cuts are good, but we shouldn't cut taxes until, a. we reduce the debt to a more manageable level, and b. we are willing to cut spending. Otherwise, permanent tax cuts are foolish.

I have often heard Savage shouting against federal waste. I don't think that you'd get any argument from him on that one.

We should have them be on a green cardesque system, and only allow them citizenship and welfare rights after they have had a steady job, speaking passable English, and know enough about our history. But we should give them that chance.

I can't even count how many reasons there are for this not working. I'm unsure about what you mean regarding a "green cardesque" system, but I do know that we already require immigrants to have green cards. This system is not working.

Immigrants should not be allowed welfare rights. The urban areas of the country (where many immigrants take up residence) are overpopulated already, and immigrants who move into this country should have something to contribute to it's economic wellbeing. They should be aiding in the circulation of money, and the growth of the tax base.

And I understand his point about Quebec, but the problem with Quebec is more about the fact that Quebeci's, outside of there language, feel like they are Quebecis first, and Quebec is their national home.

The Canadian government has had a huge hand in creating the Quebec debacle. Everything in quebec has to be printed in two languages. This wastes more money in one year than any of us will see in a lifetime. The people of Quebec insist on speaking French as a matter of pride. This is a generalization of course, but one that I have seen a good deal of evidence for. Quebec is a part of Canada, and it is time that they accept this fact. They could have formed their own country, but that measure failed, and support for it grows less every year.

But, America has absorbed many more immigrants than now, and did less too teach them English, and we are a pretty homogenous culture.

You are in error, my friend. As has been stated previously, the US has (especially in the 19th century on) always had immigration restriction. Problems with immigration are much worse now than they ever have been. Here are some facts for you. (sources available on request)

-The U.S. admits almost 1,000,000 legal aliens annually, the highest sustained rate in our history
-Over the last 30 years, Congress has tripled legal immigration levels
-Uncontrolled immigration will drive the U.S. population from 270 million today to 392 million by 2050
-Between 1997 and 2006, the projected total net cost to taxpayers for immigration will be $865.98 Billion.

It worked before, it'll work again. And just because someone doesn't speak English doesn't mean they shouldn't be able to learn in school. But they should be taught.

Here's why immigration worked in the past:
People who came to this country sought to better themselves through a good deal of hard work. I don't deny that there are people who attempt this now, but there are major differences. The immigrants of the past came to this country, tried to find work, and tried to assimilate into the culture. People 'americanized" their last names. People refused to teach their children the language of the country that they came from. Why? Because they were making every effort to be a part of this country.

I live in California. We have many immigrants here. We have too many immigrants here. I work with the public, and I can say that I am tired of trying to help people who do not speak english. I speak spanish, but often times I am the only person in the store who does. I can't tell you how much of a problem this creates. The majority of commerce, gov, etc. is conducted in English. How do you expect to function if you can't speak the language? I understand that people will not know the language at first, but there are many who make little effort toward proficiency.

Alden

February 26th 2003, 01:54 AM

California is now printing ballots in spanish as well as english. Here is the problem that I have with that:

You have to be a citizen to vote. You have to have a proficient knowledge of English to become a citizen. Therefore, you should not be voting if you can't understand the ballot. And don't tell me, "most americans can't understand the ballots." I know this is true, because we are turning into a nation of apathetic idiots.

I'll tell you how we fix immigration. We beef up the boarder patrol, and actually let our people do their job.

All immigrants learn English. How? It's called full emersion. My spanish is excellent if I am surrounded by no one but spanish-speakers.

Make English the official language of the United States of America.

Find a way to keep politicians from pandering to immigrant groups. No more of this social programs for votes crap. Instead, we focus on integration.

Here's the overall point. Language, and therefore to a lesser extent, culture, are the major things that will keep a country unified. Our country is becoming so fractious, because of things like immigration, lack of a common culture, and the increase in people who can't speak the language, that I see the US going the way of the dinosaur.

Sorry for the lengthy posts, but this is one subject that gets me :argh:

Rubia Warren

February 26th 2003, 11:39 AM

I agree with Alden's last post 100%.
I am a bilingual interpreter- sometimes I am paid by the state or the county, and lots of times, I translate for immigrants- at lawyer's offices, doctor's offices, court, and previously, in the welfare and WIC offices. I'd say about 95% of the immigrants who call me are illegal Mexican aliens.
Many, not all, but many, live an enormous amount of people in a house, so that their bills are cheap, they hoard their money away (and I am talking a big stash), then they call me when their girl gets pregnant to go down with them to the welfare office to get a free ride. They lie about who lives in their household, then they lie about they themselves working with a fake greencard- or someone else's greencard. So, these people work themselves- but it can't be tracked, because the have no SSN, and are working under another one, and they live in a house with lots of other people, and when they get done using someone like me to do their bidding for them at the welfare office, they even get to have all of their pregnancy expenses paid for, and whatever children they have that are born this side of the border gets free medical care, PLUS food stamps for those children. Illegal aliens get almost the same benefits as a citizen- except no food stamps for the adult, and no welfare check (big whoopty- doo). Yet, I have gone in with legitimate green card holders who were elderly and needed medical care- they didn't want food stamps or anything, just medicaid... and were denied, because they are neither illegal, nor citizens. Now, does that make sense? These are just a few reasons why I refuse to translate at the welfare office.
I know many hispanics who have come here and learned the language and held their own, and never received gov't help, but I also personally know an overwhelming amount of people who are wanted by the police under a made up name for various crimes, have used the welfare system to the max, and have lived here at least 10 years, and still cannot carry on a conversation in english. The green card system is not the problem, the problem is our open borders, and lack of deportation once they're in.
We do not need bilingual education- in my small Indiana town, there are at least 10 places you can go for free to learn english, or for kids to get tutored for free- just people volunteering their time, and you wouldn't believe the people who call me up, more willing to pay a translater an ungodly amount of money, than to learn english for free.

Ryokan

February 26th 2003, 02:26 PM

The green card system obviously needs reform, I don't question that. And I know several people who are illegal who live in these overly crowded households, and they have people who get knocked up and try to weasel out welfare. And I realize that unrestricted immigration would be a disaster, and that is vitally important to have a unified language in our country. And I am not ignorant of the potential for ethnic strife. I do live in cincinnati, and its only been a little over a year since our riots.

However, think about this. Without immigration, our country would be experiencing negative population growth. As it is, we are growing very slowly. This greying is causing our social security problem. If we let in more immigrants they'd have more children, who would give into welfare, and help salvage the system. In the even bigger picture, the investment made on each individual is less than they give back to society, i.e. larger pop. can me a larger GNP per capita. So it would help the economy. In addition, I think you know Alden that the innercity of most American cities is decaying and being depopulated rapidly. An influx of immigrants may help to revitalize the cities. We stand alot to gain. And it seems more ethical to me.

Ryokan

February 26th 2003, 02:27 PM

2 years since the riots. Time flies. But our problems don't :(

$cirisme

February 26th 2003, 02:55 PM

I actually agree with him on all 9 points. :hrm:

Alden

February 26th 2003, 03:33 PM

This greying is causing our social security problem.

Wrong!

This is not what is causing the social security problem. the problem is caused by the federal government, which has been borrowing off the interest for years. If they had simply left it alone, we would be fine, baby-boom retirement or no.

Social Security also gets something like 2% interest, which is ridiculously low. It is horribly mismanaged.

If we let in more immigrants they'd have more children, who would give into welfare, and help salvage the system.

How?

Immigration has constantly been increasing, yet SocSec gets worse.

In the even bigger picture, the investment made on each individual is less than they give back to society, i.e. larger pop. can me a larger GNP per capita. So it would help the economy.

How?

This is not true if the person is undocumented, not paying the taxes citizens pay, or receiving welfare.

In addition, I think you know Alden that the innercity of most American cities is decaying and being depopulated rapidly. An influx of immigrants may help to revitalize the cities. We stand alot to gain. And it seems more ethical to me.

How are they going to be revitalized? I'd really be interesting in seeing a city in the last 20 years that massive amount of immigration has "revitalized".

Captain Ochre

February 26th 2003, 03:35 PM

02-26-2003 @ 06:26 PM
Ryokan:

This greying is causing our social security problem.

Uh . . .

With all due respect . . .

the problem with Social Security is that is was set up in an idiotic manner. It was MOL a pyramid scheme put on by the federal government. One generation of retirees would be paid by taxing the next generation of (potential) retirees and so on. You might as well say that the problem with SS is that people are living longer, because it's just as true.
It was a bad idea to involve the government in everybody's retirement plan. You want a safety net for folks who didn't plan well? That's one thing, but foisting (by mandate) this particular plan on US citizens was a bad idea even without giving social security benefits to retired immigrants who never paid a cent in taxes to the US government.

Ryokan

February 26th 2003, 05:55 PM

Captain Ochre

February 26th 2003, 07:02 PM

02-26-2003 @ 09:55 PM
Ryokan:

I think captain ochre has a point about the Pyramid scheme thing. And the only way a pyramids scheme holds up is if you get more people. Either by a. having babies, or b. immigrants. And I disagree gov borrowing is the primary casue of the collapse, and that more SS money wouldn't help.

Uh, yeah, but the problem with pyramid schemes is that they inevitably fail if you don't have an infinite number of people (Hilbert's Hotel, anyone?). It's unethical to pass the responsibility for retirement planning to future generations--we bollix things up enough for future generations as it is.

Alden

February 26th 2003, 07:27 PM

I think captain ochre has a point about the Pyramid scheme thing. And the only way a pyramids scheme holds up is if you get more people. Either by a. having babies, or b. immigrants. And I disagree gov borrowing is the primary casue of the collapse, and that more SS money wouldn't help.

He does have a point. My point however, was that we would be in a lot better posistion if the government had left SS's interest alone. We would be in a lot better postition if the program hadn't been mismanaged.

I personally don't agree with the existence of the system in its entirety, but that is another problem altogether.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Social Security started out as a paternal insurance fund. The government didn't believe the average American worker (call him Mr. X) would be disciplined or foresighted enough to plan for his own retirement. So they regularly took some of his income away so that it could be returned to him when he retired.

But for various reasons, things didn't go as planned. Social Security benefits were increased while taxes were cut, more entitlements were added, moneys were diverted to unrelated government programs, and the fund managers were unable to predict the changes in and effects of population, income, and inflation. The upshot is that when it came time for Mr. X to retire, his money had vanished. So instead, Mr. X received the money contributed by Mr. Y, an average American from a younger generation who was not likely to retire any time soon. But then came another problem: where would Mr. Y's retirement money come from? Well, from the even younger Mr. Z. But then where would Mr. Z's retirement money come from? And so on.

This, then, is the story of how Social Security went from being an insurance fund - where each worker paid for his own retirement - to a "pay-as-you-go" scheme - where each worker pays for the retirement of the older generation, and has his own retirement paid for by the younger generation. In other words, Social Security was never intended to be a "solemn compact between generations"; it only got to be so as a result of government mismanagement.

http://www.spectacle.org/1000/denvil.html
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Alden

February 26th 2003, 07:44 PM

And as far as percentage of Pop. Immigration was much greater earlier in our century, they lived in much more crowded conditions, and as many spoke English. We didn't go the "way of the dinosaurs" then, and we won't now.

But things are different now. True, as a percentage of the pop., there were more immigrants in the past. However, it is are huge population currently that is the difference. New immigrants are a smaller proportion of the pop, but only because the population of the US has increased so much in the last century.The US pop increased by 32 million between the years of 1990 and 2000 alone. If we continue this growth, we are projected to have 500 million people by the end of this century.

It is an over exaggerated fear that has been with us since our inception. Benjamin Franklin was afraid German would become our national language cuz of the large levels of German immigration. Ethnic frontier towns existed in as great numbers as enthic hispanic cities exist along the border. We can overcome the problenms, to our benefit.

False analogy.

Ben Franklin was speaking before the US had finished being birthed. The US then bears little resemblance to the US now. I'm sure that ethnic frontier towns existed and were very successful, but what does this have to do with now?

The US of today is immesurably more complicated economically (industrially, for one) and governmentally.

Also immigration has been increasing, but most is illegal, and they don't pay social security.

I believe that I made this point as one of the reasons for closing the boarders. You're right, they don't pay SS, they don't pay taxes like citizens do, but they do collect benefits.

And I said they could revitalize the cities. As it stands, developers are afraid to develope in the innercities cuz white flight has caused many city gov's to give up on them. Again, see cincinnati as a classic case.

Once again, how could they revitalize the cities? Do you have any examples?

Ryokan

February 27th 2003, 09:31 AM

I will drop the city arguement. I cannot form a coherent arguemement.

However, what is the concern over a 500 million pop. America has plenty of room for 500 million people, and as the rest of the world catches up to us economically and industrial, we will need mopre people to compete with them.

What Ben Franklin, and ethnic frontier towns have to do with now, and what they mean, is that through ouit our history people have been making the exact same arguement you are and it has never happened. This makes me think that, despite Quebec, which is an entirely different situation, there is little evidence to suggest that immigration will cause us to split up.

And yes, we are more complicated, but we are also more easily able to absorb people. Are cities certainly are. Most of the east coasts major cities looked like third world cities, with massive areas of informal housing, delapitated housing, no infrastructure, etc.
And if we made these immigrants who could get jobs citizens they would pay taxes. And then I am fine with kicking out the people who couldn't and just collected benefits.:whip:

Alden

March 1st 2003, 08:40 PM

However, what is the concern over a 500 million pop. America has plenty of room for 500 million people, and as the rest of the world catches up to us economically and industrial, we will need mopre people to compete with them.

Why would we need more people. Number of people can actually have little to do with economic competition. Look at Japan for example. A good amount of the electronics we buy are from Japan, as are many of our cars. I'm not sure on this, but I think that a Japanese cars are outselling American cars on our own soil.

What Ben Franklin, and ethnic frontier towns have to do with now, and what they mean, is that through ouit our history people have been making the exact same arguement you are and it has never happened. This makes me think that, despite Quebec, which is an entirely different situation, there is little evidence to suggest that immigration will cause us to split up.

It may be that "through out our history people have been making the exact same arguement," but it's not like these things happen overnight. Just because it hasn't happened yet doesn't mean it won't happen, or isn't close to happening.

How does this not relate to quebec? One of the original points of this thread is Savage's "boarders, language, and culture." The lack of these things has caused huge problems in Canada, and the point is that this is where we might be headed.

And yes, we are more complicated, but we are also more easily able to absorb people. Are cities certainly are. Most of the east coasts major cities looked like third world cities, with massive areas of informal housing, delapitated housing, no infrastructure, etc.
And if we made these immigrants who could get jobs citizens they would pay taxes. And then I am fine with kicking out the people who couldn't and just collected benefits.

"looked" or look? Has this changed any?

Immigrants can apply for citizenship, but they don't have to be citizens to pay taxes, they only have to be legal.

It is still my position that:

We have tighter boarder security.

Make English the official language.

Deport all illegals

Restructure immigration to lean more heavily toward people who are educated professionals.

Rubia Warren

March 1st 2003, 10:54 PM

What do you guys mean by illegals don't pay taxes? Where I live, most of them, I'd say, work factory jobs under a fake SSN, and they cannot do a tax return at the end of the year, so anything taken out of their checks gets kept by the government. They do get around that a little, however, by claiming as many exemptions as possible throughout the year, so that much less is taken out of their checks, but still, SOMETHING is going to the government. Are you guys talking about the illegals who get paid under the table, or something? It has been my understanding that basically anyone who works and lives here is required to pay taxes, not just citizens, but even green card holders.

Alden

March 2nd 2003, 12:05 AM

Are you guys talking about the illegals who get paid under the table, or something? It has been my understanding that basically anyone who works and lives here is required to pay taxes, not just citizens, but even green card holders.

Yes, I am talking about those who get paid under the table. I know a good many of these myself.

when I said:

Immigrants can apply for citizenship, but they don't have to be citizens to pay taxes, they only have to be legal.

I was referring to, among other things, those who have green cards.

Jin-Roh

March 2nd 2003, 08:30 PM

I like Michael Savage very much. I disagree with his views when it comes to theology, but when it comes to politics I almost always agree with him.

Borders language culture?
I strongly agree with the first. The second as well the third I'm more or less solid with as well.

The reasons for the last two is that countries in europe operate fine with several languages. I believe English to be the national language here, and that immigrants can learn it. But If I hear someone speaking spanish or something I'm not that bothered by it.

In reference to culture, I don't have a big problem with "China-towns" and stuff like that, but it does bother me when immigrants come into the country and refuse to adapt. If you live in another country, I don't think its a very big deal for you to adapt.

I mean, I took off my shoes when I walked into a Japanesse home when my dad was visiting a man from work a few years ago. Sheesh.

Pursuing_Truth

March 24th 2005, 03:24 PM

Here's a blast from the past. As a Savage fan I thought it'd be fun to revive this old thread. I agree with all 9 points mentioned in the OP. Some of them are just plain common sense such as the medical testing of all immigrants. My complaint with his program recently is that when he doesn't feel like talking about politics he keeps saying "so what do you want to talk about today?" He's a 1/2 hour into in his program and he still says this! Anyway, has anyone read any of his three books? I read the first two but I'll have to get the third from the library since I have no money. Peace.

KeepinItReal

March 24th 2005, 07:14 PM

Seasanctuary

March 24th 2005, 07:41 PM

I think Savage is a noisy bigot. ...which is why I enjoy listening to him from time to time.

1. Make tax cuts permanent.

I side with Capitalism on the Capitalism vs. Socialism debate. That said, "Make tax cuts permanent" isn't a very good precise way to put it.

2. Close the borders now.

Xenophobia. The man thinks America is for Americans and not immigrants...and fails to see the irony in this.

3. Deport all illegal immigrants now.

Sounds good to me. I do agree that it's stupid to have immigration laws but not enforce them. Of course, I think the solution is to open our gates wider by law.

4. Eliminate bilingual education in all states.

This could mean a couple of things. If he's referring to programs where schoolchildren can go along without learning English, then I agree. (And note, this is monolingual education.) English should be a required learning for all schoolchildren. You're cheating them out of one of the most useful bits of education otherwise.

If he's trying to cut Spanish (etc.) education, then he's the one trying to cheat kids out of education. We'd be better off if all schoolchildren were schooled in English and Spanish. That's what I'd call bilingual education and it'd be VERY good.

5. Require health tests for all recent foreign born immigrants.

Oh dear. Give those mangy importants a flea dip before we let them into our pristine clean room which is White Protestant Anglophonic America.

6. Eliminate as many entitlement programs as possible.

Ok. We can eliminate them all. It'd help if he would specify which ones he thinks should stay. Eliminating socialist entitlements is very hard. I think America will continue to be bogged down by them until we suck as bad as [your favorite washed up country].

7. Reduce the number of Federal Employees.

Fine with me. Which types? I'm all for more people earning their living in the free market rather than being tax vampires.

8. Oil Drilling on U.S. Soil.

Good idea. That way when we run out here we'll be totally at the mercy of foreign oil. Woot! ...or maybe we should stop wasting time crying about drilling in the US and do whatever it takes to get off oil completely.

9. Tort Reform "STOP LAWYERS".

That's nice. How exactly?

Michael Savage founded The Paul Revere Society (PRS). With a crisis of leadership threatening the United States, PRS stands for the reassertion of our borders, our language, and our culture.

Sounds like KKK to me.